3 ms·

These type of articles are a riot: praising new taxes like they are a boon instead of primarily a political class grift with rare additional benefit to the citi

These type of articles are a riot: praising new taxes like they are a boon instead of primarily a political class grift with rare additional benefit to the citizenry. And especially not any that overcomes the economic drag.

alistairSH 2y ago
Are you contending trickle-down works and were too far to the right on the Laffer Curve? If so, I’d live to see the science.
- tivert 2y ago
  > If so, I’d live to see the science. Ok, here's the science: [insert libertarian propaganda here]
  - mrangle 2y ago
    Only bested by communist propaganda. I'm not a libertarian. I'm also not one to be berated into professing that the opposite of disapproving of ever more taxes is libertarianism nor anything else. The justification for ever more taxes can be intellectually contested on its face.
    - tivert 2y ago
      Whoever said anything about communism? The idea of trickle-down economics is something that only seems to appeal to the rich and people who eat up the libertarian propaganda they produce or patronize.
      - mrangle 2y ago
        >Whoever said anything about communism? Whoever said anything about Libertarianism? Only "rich people" and "dupes for libertarianism" "seem to" prefer low taxes? This is seriously how you think you are going to participate in a discussion, and this is your premise that you think needs to be debated? In citing communism, I was only matching your hyper-defensive snark and substance avoidance by throwing around a roughly opposite term that is meant to have a negative connotation. Just as you have repeatedly done by introducing a negative connotation for "libertarian", which again I absolutely am not. Libertarian ideology is not the opposite of pro-tax policy advocacy. What else?
        tivert 2y ago
        > Only "rich people" and "dupes for libertarianism" "seem to" prefer low taxes? I think your problem is you're treating "trickle-down economics" as a synonym for "low taxes," when it isn't. > In citing communism, I was only matching your hyper-defensive snark and substance avoidance by throwing around a roughly opposite term that is meant to have a negative connotation. Communism is a dead boogeyman, while libertarianism is a thing that still has some life in it.
- mrangle 2y ago
  Hold on: I have to calm my shivering nerves after the intimidating meaningless jargon and threat to evaluate "the science", whether or not you actually have the ability to do so. I'm contending that you putting words in my mouth is garbage rhetoric and that you should know better. That higher tax revenue is not an absolute good; primarily because those who impose taxes are incentivized to do so via variously legal and unethical pay that diverts tax funds from their supposed intent back to these people. To the point that the supposed intent should be assumed to be often false until otherwise proven not only by funding but by results. And that the economic system in general is inherently flawed to the point that there is no solution that will satisfy most people either via trickle-down economics nor via heavy taxation. A slave system is not fixable by free markets, socialism-communism (old school if militant feudalism hidden so that low-wits can get behind it), nor by anything else. I'm not saying that I have a better solution as far as maintenance of civilization is concerned, but only that the system of money is fundamentally a people-ownership system that inherently cannot offer solutions, either, and out of which no ethical nor practical justification for high taxation is possible. Unless the goal is explicitly to create wealthier feudal lords that do absolutely nothing but to extract taxes to support themselves. Everyone should pay their taxes. No one has to accept the lie that more taxation is good taxation.
skeeter2020 2y ago
tax the rich - the segment that has the flexibility and resources to avoid and mitigate - into a "reserve" account where politicians can fund "one-time" projects... this is a recipe for politically-motivated pet projects that deliver little value, and will eventually be downloaded to the middle and lower classes.

alistairSH 2y ago

Are you contending trickle-down works and were too far to the right on the Laffer Curve? If so, I’d live to see the science.

tivert 2y ago
> If so, I’d live to see the science. Ok, here's the science: [insert libertarian propaganda here]
- mrangle 2y ago
  Only bested by communist propaganda. I'm not a libertarian. I'm also not one to be berated into professing that the opposite of disapproving of ever more taxes is libertarianism nor anything else. The justification for ever more taxes can be intellectually contested on its face.
  - tivert 2y ago
    Whoever said anything about communism? The idea of trickle-down economics is something that only seems to appeal to the rich and people who eat up the libertarian propaganda they produce or patronize.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      >Whoever said anything about communism? Whoever said anything about Libertarianism? Only "rich people" and "dupes for libertarianism" "seem to" prefer low taxes? This is seriously how you think you are going to participate in a discussion, and this is your premise that you think needs to be debated? In citing communism, I was only matching your hyper-defensive snark and substance avoidance by throwing around a roughly opposite term that is meant to have a negative connotation. Just as you have repeatedly done by introducing a negative connotation for "libertarian", which again I absolutely am not. Libertarian ideology is not the opposite of pro-tax policy advocacy. What else?
      - tivert 2y ago
        > Only "rich people" and "dupes for libertarianism" "seem to" prefer low taxes? I think your problem is you're treating "trickle-down economics" as a synonym for "low taxes," when it isn't. > In citing communism, I was only matching your hyper-defensive snark and substance avoidance by throwing around a roughly opposite term that is meant to have a negative connotation. Communism is a dead boogeyman, while libertarianism is a thing that still has some life in it.
mrangle 2y ago
Hold on: I have to calm my shivering nerves after the intimidating meaningless jargon and threat to evaluate "the science", whether or not you actually have the ability to do so. I'm contending that you putting words in my mouth is garbage rhetoric and that you should know better. That higher tax revenue is not an absolute good; primarily because those who impose taxes are incentivized to do so via variously legal and unethical pay that diverts tax funds from their supposed intent back to these people. To the point that the supposed intent should be assumed to be often false until otherwise proven not only by funding but by results. And that the economic system in general is inherently flawed to the point that there is no solution that will satisfy most people either via trickle-down economics nor via heavy taxation. A slave system is not fixable by free markets, socialism-communism (old school if militant feudalism hidden so that low-wits can get behind it), nor by anything else. I'm not saying that I have a better solution as far as maintenance of civilization is concerned, but only that the system of money is fundamentally a people-ownership system that inherently cannot offer solutions, either, and out of which no ethical nor practical justification for high taxation is possible. Unless the goal is explicitly to create wealthier feudal lords that do absolutely nothing but to extract taxes to support themselves. Everyone should pay their taxes. No one has to accept the lie that more taxation is good taxation.

skeeter2020 2y ago

tax the rich - the segment that has the flexibility and resources to avoid and mitigate - into a "reserve" account where politicians can fund "one-time" projects... this is a recipe for politically-motivated pet projects that deliver little value, and will eventually be downloaded to the middle and lower classes.